From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (alexy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-30 09:41:17
Peter Dimov wrote:
> True, but you can make it visible with an 'using' directive,
> causing an ambiguity:
>
> namespace N
> {
> struct f {};
> }
>
> void f(int);
>
> using namespace N;
>
> int main()
> {
> f(1);
> }
>
> So if #218 alters the Koenig lookup to apply to names (for
> consistency), non-functions would cause an ambiguity
> regardless of whether they have the right "signature"
> (assuming that they can handle operator() at all.)
They would not :), see 3.4.2 [basic.lookup.koenig] para 3:
3 When considering an associated namespace, the lookup is the same as the
lookup performed when the associated namespace is used as a qualifier
(3.4.3.2) except that:
- Any using directives in the associated namespace are ignored.
- ...
>
> Any proposal that features unqualified calls is affected by
> this issue.
In any case, may be I am full of FUD too, but I feel a little bit
uncomfortable about applying the technique that is based on so subtle
details of the language.
Aleksey